This brings up ethical issues for a manager because if a manager is too cold to the lives of their employees, then the employee will feel uncomfortable. If a manager becomes too personal, or learns too much about an employee’s personal life, then this could bias the manager from the employee’s actual work. Either way, this can create a perception of bias.
If an employer looks at personal information online, there is no guarantee that it will not enter the mind of the employer, causing even an unintentional bias to occur.
Just because a potential employee makes their personal information public does not mean that employers should use this information to judge the merits of an applicant. The exception here would be if the information is provided explicity for professional review, such as on LinkedIn.
Since an applicant’s information is public, it can be viewed by anyone, but an employer needs to follow the law, and disregard any information that is personal or protected by the law, such as in protected classes (Rasas, 2010). Even if an employer follows established statutes regarding anti-discrimination in the hiring process, new laws are created all the time, and it is not always possible to know if employers are protecting themselves against a risk.
One example of a new anti-discrimination law is the bias against the unemployed (Frauenheim, 2011). Screening processes need to be transparent in order to protect both the applicant and the employer. Whichever screening process is used should be cleared with the applicant ahead of time, such as when an employer asks for permission to conduct a background or credit check (Rasas, 2010), but definitely not to ask the applicant for their password to their Facebook accounts to look at their messages. In other words, this should not be done or asked for. Also, search history is stored and discoverable so Googling a potential candidate might be a risky practice.
So-called social sites such as Careerbuilder and Linkedin are created with the express purposes of interacting in a business networking, or job-seeking context (Picknell, 2011), so these sites are fair to look at. Another reason that Careerbuilder and the like are fair to look at is because there is an implicit agreement on the part of the applicant in the electronic agreement section to post resumes and experience.
If an applicant posts a resume or another job related information, then it is for the purpose of being made available to potential employers. If the applicant does not want this information to be reviewed, then they should pull it. But, if an applicant posts information that is protected, then an employer is responsible for this liability regardless of the format.
As with protected classes or any need to have privacy, the same need for privacy should be extended to social media.
Some research would suggest that there are already protections afforded under wire tapping statutes (McCreary, 2010). An applicant should have some common sense not to post any negative information on their social networking sites as research shows that, to a degree, employers look at this information, (Mueller & Baum, 2011).
My belief is that it is best to judge a person on the facts related to the job. This facts should be asked for and given with consent. That is how I would want to be treated.
For example, I would not want an employer to reject me based on my politics or if a friend of mine likes to go to parties. Literature suggests that there many ways that an employer can evaluate an applicant that if rigorous, but free of bias, suggesting that it matters more how the process is conducted is of high importance (Rasas, 2010).
Using a multi-step process as suggested in the research (Mueller & Baum, 2011) to spend a greater amount of time with an applicant is a good idea, because it is obvious that the more time that is spent with a person, the more you will get to know them. In order to obtain a diverse class of employees, the employer should use a variety of advertisement streams (Rasas, 2010), and post the job in as many public arenas as possible or appropriate.
For example, in the University setting where I currently work, it is required that all positions are publicly posted to give the widest range or applicants a chance to apply for the position.
I have worked for companies where positions were not posted, and employers simply filled positions internally without any transparent interview process. This is a risky move, and creates poor morale, as view in the literature (Rasas, 2010). As I looked over the example given in the resources of the proto-social media postings, as an employer, I might disregard all of the information especially if I was not given permission to do so. Finally, people change, and just by viewing an isolated comment without context is not fair, and it does not seem right.
References
Frauenheim, E. (2011). Is there a bias against hiring the jobless? Workforce Management, 90(4), 10-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/860715666?accountid=14872
McCreary, J. A., Jr. (2010). Social media symposium: Social networking and employment law. Pennsylvania Bar Association quarterly, 81(2), 69–80. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the LexisNexis database.
Mueller, J. R., & Baum, B. (2011).The definitive guide to hiring right. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(3), 140–153. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the ProQuest database.
Pickell, R. (2011). Checking social media sites when hiring? proceed with caution.Canadian HR Reporter, 24(6), 17-17. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/861493880?accountid=14872
Rassas, L. (2010). Employment law: A guide to hiring, managing and firing for employers and employees. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
Post A Comment:
0 comments: